Resin–tooth interfacial morphology and sealing ability of one‐step self‐etch adhesives: Microleakage and SEM study

Manuja, Naveen; Nagpal, Rajni

doi:10.1002/jemt.22011

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 The viscosity, surface tension, functional monomers, pH, water con-centration, and cohesive strength of adhesives may affect the bonding and explain the microleakage of the adhesives studied. 6,13 The absence of these variables can be considered as study limitations. Other features, such as the type of composite, cavity, and dye tracer, analyzed tooth section, and number of sample, may also have influenced the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the microleakage of class V restorations bonded with various one-step self-etching adhesives. Seventy class V resin-based composite restorations were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 premolars, by using: Clearfil S 3 Bond, G-Bond, iBond, One Coat 7.0, OptiBond All-In-One, or Xeno IV. The Adper Single Bond etch-and-rinse two-step adhesive was employed as a control. Specimens were thermocycled for 500 cycles in separate water baths at 5°C and 55°C and loaded under 40 to 70 N for 50,000 cycles. Marginal microleakage was measured based on the penetration of a tracer agent. Although the control showed no microleakage at the enamel margins, there were no differences between groups (p = 0.06). None of the adhesives avoided microleakage at the dentin margins, and they displayed similar performances (p = 0.76). When both margins were compared, iBond  presented higher microleakage (p < 0.05) at the enamel margins (median, 1.00; Q 3 -Q 1 , 1.25-0.00) compared to the dentin margins (median, 0.00; Q 3 -Q 1 , 0.25-0.00). The study adhesives showed similar abilities to seal the margins of class V restorations, except for iBond  , which presented lower performance at the enamel margin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resin bonding to enamel and dentin with simplified adhesive systems should be considered as highly techniquesensitive clinical procedures since a number of factors including material [17,19], evaporation of solvents and water [17], type of adhesive application [6,17,20], application time [12] affect their bonding performances. It seems meaningful that sensitivity of light-cured resin adhesive to operating light exposure would be another potential factor would affect bonding performances of selfetch adhesive, since effects of potentially premature polymerization of adhesive resin due to exposing operating light have not well-studied in the literature.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Operating Light Exposure on Enamel Bonding Performances of Universal Adhesives

Ayar¹,

Erdemir²

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study evaluated the effect of operating light exposure conditions on the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite resin bonded to enamel with three different universal adhesives used in self-etching mode. Tested adhesives were Single Bond Universal (SBU), G-Premio Bond (GB) and Nova Compo-B Plus (NB) and tested illumination conditions were, ambient light, 22.000 lux, and 8.000 lux. Ninety bovine incisors were used for SBS test (n = 10). Effect of operating light expose on the fluidity of adhesives was assessed. Resin-enamel interfaces were also evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. Two-way Analysis of Variance showed that material had a significant effect on SBS (p < 0.000) unlike the illumination condition (p = 0.459). GB provided significantly lower bond strength than those of SBU and NB (p<0.05). High power operating light likely reduces the fluidity of all adhesives. Thus, it could be recommended that clinicians would prefer to use the tested resin adhesive systems at an illuminance of 8.000 lux.

show abstract

“…Other factors such as substrate-related factors, variations in adhesive viscosity, surface tension, functional monomers, water concentration and other components of the bonding system also affect bonding. [36,38] In contrast, Van Landuyt et al [17] and Blunck and Zaslansky [39] demonstrated no correlation between pH and marginal integrity and gap formation in different adhesives.…”

Section: Microleakagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gueders et al [35] reported significantly high microleakage scores for L Pop than for Scotchbond MP, Optibond Solo Plus and i Bond. Similarly, Manuja et al [36] reported that L Pop showed higher microleakage scores than Optibond AiO. According to Brackett et al [37], the pH of the adhesive is not the only factor determining sealing ability.…”

Section: Microleakagementioning

confidence: 99%

Microtensile bond strength and sealing efficiency of all-in-one self-etching adhesives

Tekçe

Demırcı

Tuncer

et al. 2015

Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the microtensile bond strength and amount of microleakage with self-etch adhesives. For the bond strength study, 50 human third molars were randomly assigned to five groups according to the adhesive system used. In each group, half of the specimens were subjected to the microtensile test immediately after the bonding procedures and tooth sectioning, while the remaining half were subjected to the test after storage in distilled water for 3 months. For the microleakage study, following the preparation and restoration of class V cavities, 70 human molars were divided into two groups for the five adhesives; the specimens in one group were stored in distilled water for 24 h and those in the other group were stored for 3 months. In both groups, the teeth were sectioned and evaluated for dye penetration after the storage time. After 24 h, the microtensile bond strengths in descending order were as follows: Clearfil SE Bond > G Aenial Bond > Optibond All-in-One (AiO) > Adper Prompt L Pop (hereafter L Pop) > Futurabond M. After 3 months, the mTBS of all five bonding agents was decreased, although the decrease was significant only for L Pop, which showed the highest scores for leakage around the enamel margins, whereas Futurabond M showed the highest scores for leakage around the gingival margins. After 3 months, the microleakages scores significantly increased for G Aenial Bond, Futurabond M and OptibondAiO.

show abstract

Resin–tooth interfacial morphology and sealing ability of one‐step self‐etch adhesives: Microleakage and SEM study

Abstract: Prompt L-Pop showed the best bonding effectiveness in enamel, whereas OptiBond All-in-One performed significantly better in dentin.

Cited by 9 publications

References 26 publications

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

Effect of Operating Light Exposure on Enamel Bonding Performances of Universal Adhesives

Microtensile bond strength and sealing efficiency of all-in-one self-etching adhesives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About